As a leader? Yes. There's a difference between having good policy and leading others in the execution of said policy.
Point for Fistful on that one. I do have to agree with it. As far as I know, we've never seen how RP functions in an executive capacity. And to merely say "I think his policies and positions are right, and we need those positions/policies badly" does not answer the question.
I do sort of have this gut suspicion a Paul presidency could be a corrupt mess, where Paul has no ability to reign in folks running rough-shod over everything. A Paul presidency, poorly executed, could discredit Libertarian thought for a hundred years. Yes, I understand the "if we never try" counter argument that's inherent in that.
To which I reply with the "Ground up, run for dog-catcher first"-argument about the LP.
To which you reply with the "Free State Project, they already are"-argument
To which I reply, "Good, they should keep on doing that."
However, I'd still be willing to take a chance on a RP presidency. But I understand people's honest reservations, and it's not just some anti-Libertarian phobia.